Quote: chipolata @ March 2 2009, 2:45 PM GMTI'd rather write than work down a mine...
Funny, I'm writing a screenplay entitled "Sex and Violence Down the Mines"...
(shout out to a certain Mr. P. Cook ) 
Not Going Out - Series 3 Page 41
Quote: Andrew Collins @ March 2 2009, 2:38 PM GMTNot 100% sure why you're comparing our show to The Simpsons or Futurama, which are cartoons, nor to Police Squad, which was a parody. For my money, if you examine the "basic set-up" of The Simpsons it's: a family of five, living in a town. It sounds pretty lazy, and yet, in its stride, it's one of the funniest shows on television. You may not like Not Going Out, but that's subjective, as is liking it. It's unhelpful to allow subjective opinion about a show (or anything) to solidify into concrete objectivity.
As for laugh-count - again, laughs are subjective! I can sit through an entire episode of a comedy I love and not laugh. (Some people who post on this forum seem to laugh quite regularly at Not Going Out - so you not laughing at it is no more or less valid than the opinion of someone who does laugh at it.) If I sound defensive, it's only because you keep accusing me - and the other people who write the show, and conceived it - of laziness. That's quite harsh.
I picked the first four comedies that sprang to mind that probably would've been written with the same mantra: laugh-a-minute, joke-a-line, etc etc. I was under the impression that it was with that ethos that NGO first came about. It was a purely attitude-based comparison. I appreciate that, as finished products, Police Squad and NGO are entirely different programmes (even though some jokes wouldn't look out of place in either).
Who has forgiven the writers, as you put it? Those who like the show have no need to forgive anyone; those who don't (and there are plenty), are unlikely to forgive anyone.
What are the faults we "self-inflicted"? To make it unrealistic and studio-based? That was a decision Lee made early on, and one that shaped the show. I don't see how it's an infliction? You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not following your argument. Do you find the programme wanting because it is too simple in premise? You state our "failings" as "reality" when, again, I respectfully suggest you are basing your criticism on the fact that you don't find it funny, which is subjective. If your personal views were "reality" then nobody would disagree, and yet, strangely, some do.
When you compare NGO to "most unconventional, unashamedly shallow comedies" are you saying that it, too, is "unconventional"? I'd say it's about as conventional as a sitcom gets. But I'd be interested to hear you elucidate, as your opinion is as valid as anybody else's.
My own gripes with NGO were clearest in the post preceding the one you quoted - not my response to Aaron, which was largely concerned with what NGO was "trying to give", as he put it.
In short, my qualms were with the banality of everything in NGO but the jokes themselves. The main characters are charmless and unrelatable; their supporting cast limp stereotypes – how long could have been spent deliberating over the idea of giving Tim a dumb, ditzy girlfriend? Or Lee a dumb, ditzy cleaner? You will probably tell me that I am over-simplifying here to suit my argument (and perhaps I am) but if these characters had heart, or some inventive comic imperative, I'd have no cause to.
The Simpsons might've been a family, in a town, with 2.4 children, but from that the writers crafted a warm, relatable, incessantly funny satire with a remarkably broad demographic. In NGO, everything seems shallow. Lee doesn't have any great plight which, although unremarkable for the work-shy scrounger he plays, leaves him vastly short on substance. I like Lee Mack the comedian, yet I'm utterly indifferent to his on-screen counterpart.
The occasional attempts to salvage depth never quite work, either. Any instance of a serious conversation between Lee and Lucy feels incredibly awkward to watch; either because it's been poorly written, poorly acted, or – most likely – looks noticeably out-of-place as the rest of the episode spends 25-minutes skipping from set-up to punch-line, undercutting the integrity of the character and drama in the process.
Which brings me back to what NGO was really intended for; what it is "trying to give." If it truly is as unashamedly shallow as many have been at pains to point out, ascribing paramount importance to its distinctive one-liners, then it is rather an unconventional product, despite the typicality of the flat-share/pub set-up.
Hence the above diatribe on "forgiving faults", and self-inflicted failings. Despite finding at least three jokes per episode funny (it's why I watch it), it's too shallow and too uninventive conceptually to be consistently enjoyable – regardless of whether or not it was meant that way.
So few jokes come from character and so many from conversational set-ups that I get the impression that early, fundamental decisions focussed too heavily on constructing the most unencumbered vessel for quick fire one-liners. The trouble with such an approach is that when a joke falls flat – as, inevitably, will happen in any comedy, for any viewer – there is nothing to keep the audience smiling: no warmth of character; no interesting setting; no funny style. Just canned laughter, amplifying, by contrast, the dead air at home, and invoking the kind of deflating feeling you'd more readily associate with watching a comedian die on stage.
I appreciate your point about subjectivity, but I am trying to look at what I don't like about NGO from a deeper, more critical perspective. Unavoidably, everyone is passionate and arrogant about what they find funny. I think that is why studio-based, live-audience sitcoms provoke such vitriol from their detractors – because when the character and situation are stripped down, it's a lot like people standing around saying jokes, looking like they think they're funny, and getting big, canned laughs for it.
Laziness was a rather harsh accusation, admitted, but it was the feeling I got with some of the problems in NGO. Given that I find several of the jokes each episode rather funny, it just strikes me that a little more time and ingenuity at the ideas stage would've produced a far more enjoyable sitcom.
Quote: Mav42 @ March 2 2009, 7:28 PM GMTcanned laughs
By canned laughs, do you mean the canned but in actual fact real laughs from the live studio audience? Who are alive and laughing at what they are seeing? Those canned laughs? 
Quote: Mav42 @ March 2 2009, 7:28 PM GMTDespite finding at least three jokes per episode funny (it's why I watch it), it's too shallow and too uninventive conceptually to be consistently enjoyable – regardless of whether or not it was meant that way.
But-wait-you watch the show? Because you think there might be three decent one liners an episode? Then come on here and tear it to pieces? Then tune in again the next week? I'll never understand that sort of thing! If I thought something was as bad as you seem to think this show is, I could find a hell of a lot of other things I'd rather be doing than tuning in! Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I can't understand how anyone can dislike this show. It's a sitcom, there is a situation and more importantly there is comedy (thank God, I thought it had died with Father Ted). If you want character go and watch a play.
I think the writers should be applauded, how many new comedies come out every year that are just plain unfunny? Probably 90%.
Quote: Andrew Collins @ March 2 2009, 2:38 PM GMTIt's unhelpful to allow subjective opinion about a show (or anything) to solidify into concrete objectivity.
And therein lies my quote of the week.
Closely followed by this one:
Quote: Anorak @ March 2 2009, 3:00 PM GMTYou'd be surprised how quick it is to write a response like that when you're avoiding writing something else...
Quote: Mav42 @ March 2 2009, 7:28 PM GMTJust canned laughter, amplifying, by contrast, the dead air at home, and invoking the kind of deflating feeling you'd more readily associate with watching a comedian die on stage.
Can someone please explain? What exactly is this fabled canned laughter supposed to be? Does it even exist? 
I was at the recording for next week's episode and I can assure anyone reading that the audience laughter was incredibly loud and unforced, and no "canned laughter" will be required. Yep, it's true... people DO actually laugh at NGO. For real... honest.
'Canned laughter' is a lazy cliche used by journalists who have never attended a live recording of a sitcom, to indicate that, because they personally found a joke unfunny, they assumed the laughter in the studio must have been added on. ie taken from 'the can', as in pre-recorded.
As anyone who has ever been to a live recording knows, the problem is invariably the other way round eg when something gets a huge laugh, if that huge laugh were kept it would make the show look even more artificial.
What often happens is that a scene may be recorded two or three times. By the second or third take, the audience already know what's coming so they won't laugh so spontaneously. And in that situation the most spontaneous sounding laugh will be used. ie a laugh that's already 'in the can'.
Dave Cohen
Thanks Dave. So, canned laughter does 'still' exist and from your explanation, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If the laughter used came from the audience originally, what's the problem?
There is one scene in next week's episode (probably my favourite gag ever in NGO) and it got a huge roar from the audience. But they did have reshoot the scene, so, if they use the original audience 'laugh', that would be classed as canned laughter? 
Quote: Mav42 @ March 2 2009, 7:28 PM GMTThe occasional attempts to salvage depth never quite work, either. Any instance of a serious conversation between Lee and Lucy feels incredibly awkward to watch; either because it's been poorly written, poorly acted, or – most likely – looks noticeably out-of-place as the rest of the episode spends 25-minutes skipping from set-up to punch-line, undercutting the integrity of the character and drama in the process.
Or, as I suspect is the writers' intention, that Lee himself feels uncomfortable and really quite awkward with serious conversation. To make the audience feel equally awkward only shows the high quality of the writing, not that it is "poor".
Quote: jacparov @ March 2 2009, 7:53 PM GMTif you want character go and watch a play.
Well, I can't agree with that sort of thinking! It's always better if the characters are as well written as the jokes!
Quote: Matthew Stott @ March 2 2009, 8:24 PM GMTWell, I can't agree with that sort of thinking! It's always better if the characters are as well written as the jokes!
Yes I concede that, I'm just glad it's got jokes.
Quote: Rustle T Davis @ March 2 2009, 8:18 PM GMTThanks Dave. So, canned laughter does 'still' exist and from your explanation, it's not necessarily a bad thing. If the laughter used came from the audience originally, what's the problem?
Canned laughter is generally a derogatory term, relating to pre-recorded laughs, artificially inserted into the scene's soundtrack. In Dave's example, laughter from one take is used on another - quite understandable, IMO. However, most accusations of "canned laughter" imply that it's been brought up on a tape from the sound effects department, having originally been recorded in 1982.
Quote: Mav42 @ March 2 2009, 7:28 PM GMTThe occasional attempts to salvage depth never quite work, either. Any instance of a serious conversation between Lee and Lucy feels incredibly awkward to watch; either because it's been poorly written, poorly acted, or – most likely – looks noticeably out-of-place as the rest of the episode spends 25-minutes skipping from set-up to punch-line, undercutting the integrity of the character and drama in the process.
So few jokes come from character and so many from conversational set-ups that I get the impression that early, fundamental decisions focussed too heavily on constructing the most unencumbered vessel for quick fire one-liners. The trouble with such an approach is that when a joke falls flat – as, inevitably, will happen in any comedy, for any viewer – there is nothing to keep the audience smiling: no warmth of character; no interesting setting; no funny style. Just canned laughter, amplifying, by contrast, the dead air at home, and invoking the kind of deflating feeling you'd more readily associate with watching a comedian die on stage.
Both of these points are quite interesting, because, in my opinion they are totally unfounded. The latter comment regarding so few jokes coming from character is, I believe, incorrect. A large proportion of the jokes do come from character, it is just that they are told in a set up and pay off style and that is why I feel you think this. It is the style of humour the show has chosen to use, and of course it is not going to appeal to everyone, but, that is when we all have to be objective and realise that you can't please all of the people, all of the time. There is no sitcom out there that can claim to please one and all. Quite often the humour comes from the characters' faults such as Barbara being clumsy, Tim being a wimp, Daisy being a little dim etc. but it is humourised through the gags. There are plenty of shows out there that get humour from character, such as something like Gavin and Stacey, which I also enjoy. A show such as Gavin and Stacey tend to avoid your typical gag set up, as such, and rely heavily on the humour coming from the individual characters. It's successful at it's style, just as Not Going Out is successful at it's style. It would be interesting to see just how many of the gags are based on character, perhaps during tonights repeat. I would say that a large proportion are. A lot of the humour also comes from the relationships between the characters with each other-something I think is important in sitcom, well, it is for me anyway.
As for the criticism that any serious conversations between characters, such as Lee and Lucy, are awkward and out of place amongst the gag heavy other 25 minutes of the show, I fear you may be missing the point. Serious conversations are able to be soft and subtle as they stand out even more as the pace changes from the rest of the show. For me, it often leads to adding to the depth as it is more touching when the characters behave in a way we don't often see. It is, however, always nice to then see them revert back to their old selves, having not learnt anything and not changing. I remember a scene from last series between Lee and Lucy in which Lee is pretending to chat Lucy up. After a few gags, Lee then turns serious resulting in a truely touching moment between the two characters only then to return to the gags. It's these twists and turns that I think add to the humour.
I do however agree with all the other posters who have stated that comedy is subjective and therefore regardless of my opinion, or anyone elses, people will rarely be persuaded to think differntly from how they already feel. So why on earth did I just take the time to write that!
Quote: Aaron @ March 2 2009, 8:29 PM GMTHowever, most accusations of "canned laughter" imply that it's been brought up on a tape from the sound effects department, having originally been recorded in 1982.
Well, that's what I've always thought - that it's a derogatory term - but it shouldn't be.
Oh, and I knew there was a reason your avatar freaked me out.
As you know I love the show. Good to see so many writers of this show on here - but I don't really think you have to defend yourselves. As you say it's all subjective. Now let's see Jennifer Saunders coming here using her real name!
Quote: Rustle T Davis @ March 2 2009, 7:55 PM GMTCan someone please explain? What exactly is this fabled canned laughter supposed to be? Does it even exist?
It may be used when they do a really funny gag and everyone laughs uncontrollably - but they have to do four retakes.
I really wanted to read the stuff on this page. Some of it looked really interesting. But I found that I couldn't, because the paragraphs were 15 lines long.